Inflating would mean that there are still coins created out of thin air (aka. coinbase transactions) and within a certain period of time there will be MORE units of this coin available for transfer than before.

Stable/deflating means that all planned coins have been issued and it is not planned or possible to create more. These coins need to be issued in a way, that they could at least theoretically be spent, e.g. issuing 21 million BTC to a black hole address and then pulling them with a special transaction from there instead of "coinbase" would NOT make it stable float, issuing 100 billion XRP to OpenCoin/RippleLabs and them promising to distribute 55 billion over time does make them stable float, even if not all have been distributed (because they could theoretically enter the market at any time).

This would mean that some coins will "change sides" over time (e.g. Bitcoin will become stable float somewhere around 2140, Protoshares as far as I understood it much earlier) while others are designed to inflate infinitely.

The reason for this is, as others put it so "elegantly" as "scamcoins", that it might be hard to compare market caps of something that is slowly increasing and a lot of activity that goes down once the amout of units expands with something that enters as a huge amount which is not or slowly decreasing with activity rising over time while adoption grows. IMHO "mining" does not really play a role in distinguishing these 2 types and it seems you mean "it is possible to create new units of these coins by mining" anyways with "mineable".

As a second remark:I'd like to see sources added for the volume and price of the individual coins, especially BTC, maybe also XRP (since it seems to me you use the number from bitcoincharts.com which reflects only a single market: XRP/BTC.Bitstamp).Also I'd like to hear your stance on what is considered a "market" that you would add as data source - after all it would be trivial to set up a web page, deposit BTC and XXX, trade these back and forth and create huge wolumes out of nowhere. Which criteria need to be met and how do you deal for example with the fact that BTC are also sold for EUR - do you ignore this, convert EUR to USD or do something else?

Final remark to the new influx of daily trolls:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381016.0I doubt RippleLabs paid anything ("Ripple" itself is not an entity, it is software), just like the Bitcoin Foundation did not pay to have BTC listed.

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges. No fees(!).Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf

Could you display the amount of money that people are willing to pay to use the network based on transaction fees? If you can add the Transaction Fees in USD spent in the past 24h, it is probably a better indicator which currency is more widely used and adding value to people's lives.

This (as well as the amount of transactions) can be easily gamed. Also as long as miners get paid transaction fees AND coinbase transactions, costs per transaction are actually much higher than actual fees.

Proof of Stake and Consensus based systems also have it MUCH cheaper to confirm transactions which is reflected in lower fees. Comparing fees and volume only would make sense for the same class of coins (e.g. PoW coins) and STILL lead to some very strage things.

Also the page is called "coinmarketcap", not "coinfeecomparison".

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges. No fees(!).Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf

Could you display the amount of money that people are willing to pay to use the network based on transaction fees? If you can add the Transaction Fees in USD spent in the past 24h, it is probably a better indicator which currency is more widely used and adding value to people's lives.

Now , this is what I call an interesting idea.If it adds also the number of transactions /day paying the fees , I would name this the website of the month.

@SukrimJust saw you post.It can still a be a comparison to some extent between the same kind of coins.Of course , if those clones copied the 27kb free tx also , but with faster blocks it will also lead to some weird and inaccurate data but , it's an interesting thing to know.

Ripple would be called "scam" far more after you take a look at the amount of transactions there... Transactions on Ripple are not only moving value, they are also used to post or update trust lines as well as market offers, thus the volume of them is MUCH higher than you might suspect, which then again looks "susicious" or "pumped".

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges. No fees(!).Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf

Oh yeah. So mastercoin and quark are not related to bitcoin but peercoin is.

U confuse similarity in codebase with similarity in processes inside corresponding communities. Peercoin enthusiasts r like true bitcoiners (focus on technology) while Quark community is more profit-oriented.

This (as well as the amount of transactions) can be easily gamed. Also as long as miners get paid transaction fees AND coinbase transactions, costs per transaction are actually much higher than actual fees.[...]

I'm only talking about the money people are willing to spend on fees. Whether it is one person spending a lot or lots of people spending a little, should not matter the economic impact is the same. I don't think it can be easily gamed by the users, unless they want to advertise their coin by spending money on transaction fees. They will run out of money eventually. People can either sell their coins or use them. Using them costs money and if they do, apparently that has more added value. People only spend money on transaction fees if they benefit from it in other ways.

Quote

Also the page is called "coinmarketcap", not "coinfeecomparison".

You're right about that. However, I would like to see it displayed to make a more fair comparison.

If miners get a high subsidy from coinbase transactions, fee markets might not really develop at these early stages, even in PoW coins.Also you did not answer to the "not every coin needs to pay miners anyways" argument... Fees on Ripple for example are more fighting spam than helping in any measurable way to deflate the money issued.

Amount of coins moved/transacted or "bitcoin days destroyed" kinda metrics might be more useful, but again not even applicable or even possible in all coins.

You talk about the money people HAVE to pay for fees, the amount people WANT to pay for fees is likely 0. If coinbase subsidies are high, few people HAVE to pay for fees, that's why they are ridiculously low in BTC for example. https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction shows to pay for the current hash rate it costs over 60(!) USD per transaction! Only a tiny part of this is paid via fees, the largest part is paid via inflation.

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges. No fees(!).Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf

niothor, are you still unleashing your inner trolls? Happy new year to you

Happy new year! to you too.It seems my trolling isn't qualified to be considered real trolling.It's weak in the daylight =))).

But to be honest , god if I can tell anymore what is a real coin and what is a scam. Probably the cold winter outside , girlfriend away till tommorow, crappy holiday overall , but they all seem like a joke lately.

If miners get a high subsidy from coinbase transactions, fee markets might not really develop at these early stages, even in PoW coins.Also you did not answer to the "not every coin needs to pay miners anyways" argument... Fees on Ripple for example are more fighting spam than helping in any measurable way to deflate the money issued.

Amount of coins moved/transacted or "bitcoin days destroyed" kinda metrics might be more useful, but again not even applicable or even possible in all coins.

You talk about the money people HAVE to pay for fees, the amount people WANT to pay for fees is likely 0. If coinbase subsidies are high, few people HAVE to pay for fees, that's why they are ridiculously low in BTC for example. https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction shows to pay for the current hash rate it costs over 60(!) USD per transaction! Only a tiny part of this is paid via fees, the largest part is paid via inflation.

Well , I always looked at comparing coins as comparing vehicles (not cars).There is no way to find the best coins based of numbers in the specs.

But it's fun to watch some numbers for the sake of comparing things (or wasting time till your movie begins).